Header Image (book)


Monday, May 4, 2020


Silverfiddle Rant!

I didn't want to go there, but an article written by snarky lefty John Harris in Politico has pushed me over the edge:

Admit it.  You are willing to let people die to end the shutdown

We are dealing in trade-offs:  How much economic destruction to save how many lives?  And even that is not accurate.  We are not saving lives--we are deferring deaths.

As Democrats continue to take a hammer and sickle to our economy* we are in an age of Cheap Tricks, Cheap Attacks, and Cheap Racist Rants. Please bear with me, its all related.

Cheap Tricks

Harris resorts to cheap tricks. After reminding us how conservatives rail against moral relativism, he unleashes this:
It’s worth noting the shift in worldviews. During the pandemic, conservatives are much more likely to be relativists—everyone dies of something eventually so let’s keep this disease in perspective—while liberals generally are quicker to assume the absolutist stance—let’s stay shut down for as long as health experts tell us we need to save lives.
Did you catch the trick:  He dropped 'moral relativist' and replaced it with simply 'relativist.'  Two different things.  That is the heap of pot metal trinkets and shiny glass beads Democrat argumentation has been reduced to.

Cheap Attacks

Harris attacks my governor, Gerald Polis (a Democrat) who I believe had done a pretty fair job balancing public health and our God-given rights. Jake Crapper asked Polis a gotcha question about the looseness of his Coronavirus policies (a typical Maoist attack, since Polis is not toeing the Democrat line and looks suspiciously closer to Trump than to Pelosi on this), and Polis gave a standard politician's answer, which touched off Harris' attack:
The murkiness of Polis’ reply requires translation. To my ear, he was saying something like this:
Yes, some people are going to die of Covid-19 who wouldn’t if I keep a full lockdown in place. I hope not too many or too fast. But keeping the risk of death as low as possible imposes other costs that are too high, and my job is to balance competing goals.
Life is full of tradeoffs and nothing is pristine.  Clean drinking water is allowed to have a certain amount of fecal coliform and harmful chemicals below a mandated threshold.  The world is full of non-malicious human activity that indirectly leads to the death of others.

Let's take Harris's statement and play "fill in the blank."  Please share your answers in the comments:
Yes, some people are going to die of [fill in the blank] who wouldn’t if we had a full ban on [fill in the blank]. 
Example Answers:  car accidents – automobiles

Cheap Racist Rants

Related to this is one more example of how the Age of Corona is empowering the partisan loonies, angry racists and raging propagandists.  This is a real headline on Vox, the leftwing 'splainer website posing as responsible journalism:
The whiteness of anti-lockdown protests
How ignorance, privilege, and anti-black racism is driving white protesters to risk their lives.
Extraordinary events cause ordure like this to bob to the surface, and such rants are always revealing. I doubt this article speaks for “people of color.” Based on my limited experience, I don't think most “people of color” look at the world through such hate-distorted lenses, but it speaks loud and clear for the revenge raging neo-Maoists who are exploiting racial differences to stoke tribalism and heap mob scorn on white people.

What say you?

* - Originally stated by a commenter at William M. Briggs - Statistician to the Stars

See also:  Covid-19: Three Futures


  1. I beieve there's an underlyng principle that illustrates and synthesizes the basis of everythng you have reported, Silver. It goes like this:

    The RIGHT may have its flawed proponents, and suffer from inconsitencies and varying dgrees of quality within its rank,s but its basic premises are sound. On the other hand the very basis of the LEFT is erroneous –– self-serving, manipulative, based on negativism and an innate desire to achieve absolute, despotic power.

    Put more simply the RIGHT provides hope, encouragement, inspiration for the individual to do his best, while the LEFT offers seductive, hate-based, envy-inspired blandishments that encourage us to believe we must remain infantile for the duration and cede our strengths, talents, and decision-making capacities to the tender mercies of an almighty, dictatorial Nanny State who knows far better than we ever could what is the right good and proper way for us to live.

    Put even more simply –– in fact simplistically, if you prefer ;-) –– it all boils down to this:



    All the myriad deals, and endless argumentation we indulge in to avoid facing and abiding by the TRUTH are only so much window dressing.

    My advice?

    Keep your eye The Prize, whatever you concieve it to be. Trust God, abide by His Word. Work hard. Be kind. Be generous. Demand little. Offer much. Hope for the best. Accept the worst with good grace, and you can't go too far wrong.

    Nobody gets through life unscathed, so it's best to take your lumps, make the best of your situation whatever it may be. Be cheerful no matter what for the sake of others. Never lose faith that your fondest hopes, dreams and ambitions may one day be fulfilled remembering all the while that Your REACH should always EXCEED your GRASP.

  2. Thank you for today's new word: "ordure". :) I like the sound of that Polis fellow -- he reminds me of me! Seriously, I'm genuinely relieved to hear your governor is doing a good job.

    I just skimmed the Vox article. I didn't agree with it, but I don't think it was terrible -- a few of its points are serious, at least. Important to note that it's a "first person" piece ("essays and interviews with unique perspectives on complicated issues") -- how objective does an editorial (as opposed to a straight news piece) need to be? Is it hard to find examples of similarly strident right-wing editorials? (I know I can find them in the British press.)

    It saddens me that the issue of reopening the economy is becoming so adversarial, it only makes it all the harder to strike a good balance. I fear we're going to end up taking an extreme position just because political factionalism won't allow either side to make sensible compromises. This is one of those occassions where either extreme is a bad solution.

    1. ORDURE - excrement, putrid garabage, debased, demoralizing cant and rhetoric, anything foul, vile, harmful and eminently undesirable

      A great word. Much btter than using the vulgar Anglo-Saxon S-Word, the four-letter equivalent with such we are all much too familiar.


    2. Hi, Jez,

      In this country at least there ARE no pieces of "straight reportage" anymore. Honest journalism, as suh has virtually ceased to exist. Virtually EVERYTHING is given a heavily biased editorial slant, however subtly, craaftily or surreptitiously.

      I have a question for you –– maybe more than one:

      You seem to equate fervor, passion, urgency, etc. with "stridency." If I am wrong, please forgive me, but much of what you say in your inimitable cool, detached, calculatedely unemotional way does appear that way.

      I'm not trying to tell you you are "wrong," believe me, but I do wonder why you seem to value this approach while giving the distinct impression that you disapprove of or feel an obligation to discount or discredit any show of "feelings?"

      Also, you give the distinct impression that you believe your opinions exemplify objective truth, which in turn makes a reader feel that he is regarded as an imbecile or a malefactor if he should disagree with you.

      I'm not chiding you, –– I have grown to like you since we enjoyed a bit of private correspondence not long ago –– but I am trying to help you become more aware of the impression you sometimes give of yourself, perhaps inadvertently.

      An airily dismissive attitude toward the thoughts and feelings of others can make one seem arrogant even when such may not be the case.


    3. Franco,
      The closest I've found to straight reportage is Reuters. Just an FYI.

    4. I think you should definitely keep in mind that my views are as subjective and prone to error as anyone else's; believe me, it's something I'm always aware of even if I don't express it consistently. I do a lot of editing - I challenge myself to write in a vigorous, uncluttered style (if this comes as a surprise, imagine how hesitant and meandering I would be unedited!), so almost all of the weasel-words and self-deprecation get exised.

      I didn't reference your first comment, but I was very conscious as I wrote mine that it was disagreeing with yours, profoundly. I think that's OK: we really do disagree, after all. Why shouldn't we each put our respective cases, unapologetically? Plenty of people I respect a lot hold many opinions opposite to mine.

      Feelings and emotional displays do embarrass me, but I view this as a failing -- I don't value detachment.


    5. I am always interested in the opinions of others, but what intrigues me more is knowing how they came to their conclusions. If someone believes that the “global community” is responsible for taking care of others less fortunate than themselves, why do they think this? Are they motivated by Christian charity? Well, many on the left deny religious faith or duty, so it can’t be that. On this issue, I believe that no one in the world is as charitable as are the Americans, British, and Canadians. What is it, then? Humanity? There is nothing wrong with having humane feelings for others, but I wonder why people on the left strive to care for Nigerians, Kenyans, and Somalis (etc.) more than they do the homeless in their own communities.

      One might note that for every dollar forcibly extracted by government in the form of taxes is one dollar less Joe Average is able to spend on others (no matter who those others may be). When government extracts money from taxpayers, to pay for food, medicine, education, whatever, our experience is that vast sums of money usually wind up in the coffers of some war lord. Does this not matter? If we have a responsibility to take care of others, do we not also have a responsibility to see that the money is well-spent? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    6. Hi Jez,

      I don't damn Vox for publishing the article--I enjoy grazing on a wide variety of opinions and I thank Vox for bringing them from the left. I also don't damn the lady who wrote it, although I do think her world-view is a twisted hellscape.

      To call an entire group of people (grouped by a superficial characteristic) ignorant, privileged and racist is itself pretty damned ignorant.

      Also, she nor anyone else owns the word "oppression." It is a good dictionary word that can be used by anyone in many contexts.

    7. @sam: "Christian charity?"
      Often. I think the identification of Christianity with right wing values is fairly unique to America. It was certainly the first thing I noticed about the US that seemed mysterious, in a country that is otherwise so familiar to us Brits.

      "no one in the world is as charitable"
      Probably, in absolute terms. Other countries make disproportionate contributions too though, eg I recently read that Cuba is notorious for sending medical relief to disaster zones.

      "[Leftists care] for Nigerians, Kenyans, and Somalis (etc.) more than they do the homeless in their own communities."
      Are you sure they do? I don't. But I do care about Africa too.
      Was Live Aid the beginning of African consciousness in pop culture? (Don't ask me, I was a child at the time.)
      There could be some post-Colonial guilt. You might argue that colonialism ended about a hundred years ago, but that's recent enough to still feel repercussions, and anyway we left behind western-oriented ruling elites so it's not as if our influence ended immediately. Even now we favour western-friendly regimes for aid. Of course we do! No complaints about that, except to note that those friendly (to us) regimes are often themselves local warlords. (Often we like them partly because they'll spend our aid on our arms. It's enough to make you want to be a hippy, isn't it? Yes, of course it matters!) There's even more recent western involvements that could probably stand to be more widely recognised, such as the mistaken dismantling of Al-barakat during the W.A.T., contributing towards Somalia's current instability.
      When I have a moment, I shall search for studies comparing the effectiveness of state aid vs private charity. My untested assumption is that charity works well except that some important causes get overlooked, and therefore state aid fulfils a valuable function, funding important but unsexy works (when it isn't a disguised weapons subsidy).

    8. Sam,
      I wonder why people on the left strive to care for Nigerians, Kenyans, and Somalis (etc.) more than they do the homeless in their own communities.

      It's no longer limited to Leftists. Jez alludes to the reason (There could be some post-Colonial guilt), albeit I would rephrase to "white guilt" and, for certain evangelicals, the Great Commission.

      I can't speak for across The Pond, but here in America the concept of "white guilt" has been drummed into students' heads -- middle school through graduate skill. I'm not sure when this drumming became the rule instead of the exception. Perhaps after Howard Zinn published A People's History of the American People in 1980 and the widespread use by teachers of the Zinn Education Project (2008).

      Now, I have no problem with teaching history "warts and all." But the skewing of the truth by focusing largely on "the warts" is not a portrayal of historical reality.

    9. 'Now, I have no problem with teaching history "warts and all."'

      Yes, please! - not just history, but current events too. I have been served ill by both education (only the tinyest glimpses of historical warts -- most people in England don't know enough to understand what there is to feel guilty about) and news outlets (pretty much a complete white-wash). Shameful.

      I agree also with your next sentence about skewed portrayals, but at the moment it's the warts that we're missing.

    10. SF: "she nor anyone else owns the word "oppression." It is a good dictionary word that can be used by anyone in many contexts."

      Yeah, that bit of the article is excruciating. I have my own issue with the word "oppression" though -- echos of Monty Python "help! I'm being oppressed!"

  3. "Some of the Great Goods cannot live together. That is a conceptual truth. We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss," - Isaiah Berlin

    So choose, mf-ers!

    1. The whiteness of anti-lockdown protests
      How ignorance, privilege, and anti-black racism is driving white protesters to risk their lives.

      Slavoj Zizek often discusses why white liberals love identity politics and political correctness, arguing that their emphasis on minorities' identities gives them a monopoly on universality.

      That's just liberals attempting to seize the "universalist's moral high ground". If you argue for a particular, like whites, those that argue for the universal are "morally better" and non-partisan. And partisans/ particularists are a "moral evil" deserving of discredit and censure.


    2. But how do you distinguish "attempting to seize the ... moral high ground" from just plain trying to be nice? I genuinely believe that a useful measure of a society is how it treats its minority elements. I really, really, un-spectucularly believe that, with all the fat and caffiene left in. But if I sincerely live by that value, and advocate the politics that flow from it, will you treat me any differently from a posturing hipster in a che guevara t-shirt who only wants to make out with a socialist chick and upset his republican dad?

    3. But how do you distinguish "attempting to seize the ... moral high ground" from just plain trying to be nice?

      Because they use it in an accusatory form, implying that their interloculatory adversaries are being "racist" and "bigoted" for NOT explicitly citing the minority position and not caring about it because of not having explicitly cited it.

      You really think that Republicans don't value minorities? We simply believe that when we say things like "Americans", it universally INCLUDES hyphenated-Americans within the very term. We feel no need to pander to your moral hyper-sensitivity.

      And frankly, this hypersensitive focus has long since become insulting.

    4. What "polite benefit" comes from "The whiteness of anti-lockdown protests"

      That only white people can't pay their bills?

    5. That only white people wish to work and are willing to risk death to do so?

      How does that "flatter" or "fail to consider" the minority race position?

    6. Do you really believe that ALL minorities wish to live on the government plantation and suck the government's teats with open hands out for political largess that the remaining citizenry can ill afford ?

    7. Yes 58% of all African Americans pay no federal income taxes. That doesn't mean that they don't need still to work. Even Baltimore is filled with "corner boys".

    8. ...and depriving them of the opportunity to risk and live their lives, earn a living, and do better than those who survive on government subsistence alone is a human right that can not long remain infringed.

    9. "You really think that Republicans don't value minorities?"

      you phrase that question as though it is merely for confirmation, but I don't believe I've ever claimed this even by implication.

      "We simply believe that when we say things like "Americans", it universally INCLUDES hyphenated-Americans within the very term."

      I think there's a strong argument to be made that this unstated intention has repeatedly been found insufficient to safeguard minority interests. Take for example one of the points from the Vox article about how access to testing might wind up being skewed towards white populations: I don't know if it will turn out that way or not, but if it did we wouldn't need there to be any deliberate malice to explain it; it's perfectly plausible that non-malicious, unconscious biasses might be expressed in this way.

      "How does that "flatter" or "fail to consider" the minority race position?"
      One thing you've failed to consider (or at least mention) is how the risk profile differs across different races/classes/genders/whatevers. While we're not mentioning race and just tacitly including them all under the universal term "Americans", we might easily ignore that the same action which seems reasonable to the dominant social stratum might present more risk and/or offer less reward to people from other strata.

      I don't think I'm being aggressive here. I've no reason to think you have any racist intentions; we probably disagree about how easy it is to be unintentionally racist, and how important that unintentional racism is.

    10. Poor people don't have the same access to good things as those wealthier than them do. Black people suffer a higher poverty level that the national average, so no one argues that.

      I take issue with her ignorant broad-brushing an entire group of people. I called her ignorant earlier, but she is not. She is a deliberate, malicious racist.

    11. If there were a discrepency in testing, who's fault would it be? The government has laws and regulations out the yang that are supposed to prevent stepping on the rights of minorities.But do you blame THEM when the stats come back? Of course not, you blame the people who PAY for the tests and cal THEM "racists".

      Nobody has "racist intentions" or is "unintentionally racist". There amay be "systemic racism", but if there is, blame THAT on the "experts" that circumvented all their own laws and regulations to design a systemically racist tet distribution system.

      But then, why should THOSE experts care? You'll never hold THOSE taxpayer moochers accountable.

    12. They ain't got no skin in the game. Right wrong, effective or useless, It's all gravy to them.

    13. You want to safeguard minority interests? Hold your government officials responsible. Give the, a reason to follow all those laws and regulations against discrimination. They designed the system for failure, yet all you do is reward them. They need skin in the game that is MORE than ALL CARROTS

    14. Here's a profile of those responsible for ALL the systemic racism in government:

      The Federal Workforce is 18.1 percent Black, 8.4 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian, 0.4 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.7 percent American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.2 percent Non-Hispanic/Multi-Racial, and 64.7 percent White. Minorities as a whole constituted 35.3 percent of the Federal Workforce.

    15. ...and just for reference, according to the 2010 census, whites are 72.4% of the general population

    16. DJT has been trying like hell to drain the swamp. He can't even get rid of the deep state civil service a holes that almost succeeded in a coup against him. And if "Mr. You're Fired" can't control a systemically racist government system, who do you think can? No support Bernie? Or Send me your Chinese and corporate Pac money Joe?

    17. Farmer,

      Thank you for bringing those facts. We must also remember that our nation's greatest concentrations of minorities are ALL ruled by a permanent Democrat ruling class, and have been for decades, and some, forever.

    18. "You'll never hold THOSE taxpayer moochers accountable"
      Wouldn't I? Much of what farmer says is interesting, but not the parts where he tells me off for opinions he's guessed that I hold.

    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    20. Be assured that I am unnettled, but I am neither willing nor qualified to play the role of Democratic party representative. It just not sensible to even try to respond -- there's only so many ways of saying "no, I don't think that."

      The lack of a non-gendered third-person singular is a weakness of modern English ("one" carries so much class baggage it is scarcely usable), so I understand that "you" is ambiguous.

      I will reply to:
      "if "Mr. You're Fired" can't control a systemically racist government system, who do you think can?"

      Does he want to? I'd have more confidence in any president who hired someone more appropriate than Steve Bannon as a personal advisor -- there's a chance they'd at least be punching in the right direction. But leaving intent aside, don't confuse a macho caricature persona with basic competence -- an abundance of the former is no compensation for a paucity of the latter.

    21. Jez said: Much of what farmer says is interesting, but not the parts where he tells me off for opinions he's guessed that I hold.

      But telling us off for OUR "racist" opinions is exactly what the univeralist moralists on the Left do. They imply, "You failed to mention the minority canary in the coal mine African-American, you insensitive racist!" It's accusatory. You don't like it and I don't like it when people tell us what we think when that's not at all what we're thinking.

    22. Steve Bannon doesn't give a sh*t about race. His entire life and career has been about bringing jobs BACK to the USA.

    23. Your "opinion" and "perception of racism" in Steve Bannon is ALL the Left attributing opinions to Bannon that he DOESN'T HOLD.

    24. I agree with Farmer, but Jez has a point. It would be fundamentally unfair to make him the Democrat Party punching dummy. He's a Brit, and much of what addresses (quite cogently and succinctly) is the tone and tenor of leftwingers.

      That's a nuanced bit of context hard to pick up on if you're not in the midst of it.

    25. OK, but there is a productive argument to be had: wouldn't it be better for the leftist to make the case that special consideration of the "minority canary" brings signficant value, rather than just telling you off?

      Doesn't Bannon's reputation rest largely on his own media output? I don't suppose I'm immune to the leftist commentary, but Breitbart headlines speak for themselves.

    26. Oh, just seen the last 2 -- thanks!

    27. Yes, there is much value in discussing the fate of the canary in the coal mine, provided you don't take the stance of an accusatory ornithologist who wants to hold you accountable for your hatred of the entire species. Minors are more concerned over the fate of the individual canary in their mine and could care less whether it's species is that of a canary or a finch.

    28. ...and attributing the contents of every article ever published at Breitbart to Steve Bannon will tell you NOTHING about Steve Bannon.

      This is why "caritas" is important. Give him the benefit of the doubt and listen to what Bannon says. When he says something that actually racist, then, AND ONLY THEN, will you be justified in believing that he is a racist. I've been listening a LONG time, and I still haven't heard it.

    29. But minors' concern for their canary is a reflection of their sense of self-preservation; I think the analogy has run out of steam already.

      "Breitbart [articles] ... tell you NOTHING about Steve Bannon."
      Disagree with you there. Surely he takes some degree of responsibility? At the very least, he failed to be nauseated by it. Maybe you aren't nauseated either, but you can't sensibly claim that it doesn't tell you something.
      What about his support for fascist parties all over Europe? In India, he backs Modi, Bolsonaro in Brazil. Obviously I'm particularly familiar with his past support for the BNP and EDL in Britain (racist and violent respectively, although there is some overlap).

      I fear you flatter my capacity for caritas.

    30. An ideological nationalist who backs other nationalists. It's the concept of national sovereignty that he supports, not the dominance of a singular race within those nations.

    31. ...and so once again, I must defend against a specious "he's a racist" argument. Do you know how tiring that is?

    32. Do you know what a waste of time it is in that it avoids the real issues of justice for individuals (not just social "groups")

    33. ...or a genuine critique of nationalism and nationalist ideology?

    34. "It's the concept of national sovereignty that he supports, not the dominance of a singular race within those nations."

      I'm willing to entertain that idea, but we're still left with his demonstrated tolerance for racial purists.

      'a specious "he's a racist" argument. Do you know how tiring that is?'

      To be precise, I have not called him a racist. I remarked that he would be an inappropriate pick for any administration that aspired to "control a systemically racist government system." I stand by that observation -- he's known for supporting numerous overtly racist parties around the world after all, so why on earth would (rhetorical) you expect him to be motivated to root out the systemic racism at home? In any case, Bannon is a side issue, I mentioned him only in passing; I'm not interested in his reputation either.
      On the other hand, I remember we have had exchanges regarding nationalism in the past. They were more interesting than this.

    35. Please. The Left supports racists of just about EVERY stripe, so long as they aren't white. Do you support Palestine? Aren't they "racist" against Jews? Don't they d the EXTERMINATION of the Jewish State? Or do you wish to argue that they are simply ANTIRA, against the "racism" of the Jewish State.


    36. I want peace in the middle east. Racist sentiments on both sides are barriers to that. I suppose that, whichever side you choose, uncritical support of it does more harm than good.


      BRAVO, FJ!

      I've greatly enjoyed your series of pithy, cogent arguments in this thread, but have to particularize here. You said a mouthful when you wrote this (far) above:

      JEZ: But how do you distinguish "attempting to seize the ... moral high ground" from just plain trying to be nice?

      FJ: Because they use it in an accusatory form, implying that their interloculatory adversaries are being "racist" and "bigoted" for NOT explicitly citing the minority position and not caring about it because of not having explicitly cited it.

      YES, FJ. I think that's the "Nuts and Bolts" of the entire noisome issue. I having seen that The Left never does anything out of LOVE or any genuine impulse to be knd generous and helpful to others, but rather to SCOLD, UPBRAID, an ATTACK Caucasians, Christians, Capitalists and those content to live a modest, comfortable "Bourgeois" lifestyle in generaal.

      Leftists like to PRETEND they are motivated by altruism, but from what i've observed over the past sixty-five years the TRUE motive behind Leftist Initiatives stems from HATRED –– self-loathing from Cucasians brainwashed by Cultural-Marxism's insidious corruption of our educational systems, but even more by the typical Leftists passionate belief that HE and He ALONE knows what's BEST for ALLmankind, and has, therefore, not only a RIGHT but DUTY to achieve DICTATORIAL power in order to CORRECT the Human Race and save it from its wayward Self.

      To achieve this ignoble objective the Left MASKS its true intentions iwith hypocritical, pseudo-pious expressions of "Deep Concern" over the plight of "downtrodden" minorities and other enfeebled sub-groups in the social strata.

      The Left CAPITALIZES, if you will on Misfortune, Disaster, and Human Frailty, as it feverishly encourages –– nay DEMANDS –– ENVY and RESENTMENT of those more fortunate than they. This in turn leads all too easily to the GLORIFICATION of SPITE, MALICE and a lust for VENGEANCE. All of which does no one a particle of good, except those demonic manipulators who perpetrate discontent, upheaval, violence and wanton destruction as their meir means of gaining ascendancy..


      Jez, in your last statement you tried to make this chain of argument PERSONAL when it has been –– I assure you –– almost solely about PRINCIPLES held sacred by Conservatives that LEFTISTS feel obliged to deem "offensive." because these principles challenge and show the falsity in Leftist claims.

      None of it in any case is about what either FJ or I "imagine" your positions to be. This argument has not been about YOU, even though you, apparently, have found it nettlesome.

    38. Hey, *I* responded to you!

    39. I didn't. Suffice to say that I agreed with most everything you said EXCEPT their motives. I don't think that they have malice in their hearts. What they have is a desire to win their argument through seizing the universalist moral high ground. These "humanitarian nihilists" truly believe themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to us religious zealots (Christians/Jews/Moslems/Deists/Pagans) because their "belief system" is based in "Science" (w/ a capital 'S') and our morality is based in mumbo-jumbo.

    40. and for Jez, just for the record, most Jews and Arabs are of the same Semitic race. Their's is a religious beef, NOT a racial one. So throwing "race" into the argument is about as productively useless as adding tits to a bull.

    41. I don't care about that distinction, so I simply mirrored your use of the term.

    42. No, it's just another instance, like when bringing up "the whiteness of the lockdown protesters" where race is injected just to achieve a morally "superior" yet intellectually vacuous position into an argument over real problems of injustice.

    43. I'll take a pragmatic solution over an intellectually rigorous treatise on justice. Emphasis on religion implies the beef is theological, which I highly doubt; racial or not, the dispute is tribal. That's why I don't care about the distinction.

    44. If you mean tribal in the Freudian "Totem and Taboo"sense, I'm with you. cuz those totems and taboo's are ALL religion, and those endogamous mf'ers are mostly inbreeders.

    45. I'll only marry my first cousin, my uncle's daughter!

    46. She's wife number 1. Wives 2-4 are defensive alliances, and the occassional "war bride".

    47. My first born son inherits everything, my other sons must wage jihad and win their fortunes in battle. My daughters will marry my brothers sons.

      Ever read Aeschylus' "Suppliant Maidens?"

    48. Its all carved on the Totem pole.

    49. btw Have you seen Netflixs "Unorthodox?". If you have, you may "get it".

    50. Europeans are out-breeders. We capture our wives from other tribes ala Haelen of Troy.

    51. Plato, "Statesman"

      STRANGER: The courageous soul when attaining this truth becomes civilized, and rendered more capable of partaking of justice; but when not partaking, is inclined to brutality. Is not that true?
      YOUNG SOCRATES: Certainly.
      STRANGER: And again, the peaceful and orderly nature, if sharing in these opinions, becomes temperate and wise, as far as this may be in a State, but if not, deservedly obtains the ignominious name of silliness.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.
      STRANGER: Can we say that such a connexion as this will lastingly unite the evil with one another or with the good, or that any science would seriously think of using a bond of this kind to join such materials?
      YOUNG SOCRATES: Impossible.
      STRANGER: But in those who were originally of a noble nature, and who have been nurtured in noble ways, and in those only, may we not say that union is implanted by law, and that this is the medicine which art prescribes for them, and of all the bonds which unite the dissimilar and contrary parts of virtue is not this, as I was saying, the divinest?
      YOUNG SOCRATES: Very true.
      STRANGER: Where this divine bond exists there is no difficulty in imagining, or when you have imagined, in creating the other bonds, which are human only.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: How is that, and what bonds do you mean?
      STRANGER: Rights of intermarriage, and ties which are formed between States by giving and taking children in marriage, or between individuals by private betrothals and espousals. For most persons form marriage connexions without due regard to what is best for the procreation of children.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: In what way?
      STRANGER: They seek after wealth and power, which in matrimony are objects not worthy even of a serious censure.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: There is no need to consider them at all.
      STRANGER: More reason is there to consider the practice of those who make family their chief aim, and to indicate their error.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: Quite true.
      STRANGER: They act on no true principle at all; they seek their ease and receive with open arms those who are like themselves, and hate those who are unlike them, being too much influenced by feelings of dislike.
      YOUNG SOCRATES: How so?
      STRANGER: The quiet orderly class seek for natures like their own, and as far as they can they marry and give in marriage exclusively in this class, and the courageous do the same; they seek natures like their own, whereas they should both do precisely the opposite.

    52. I mean tribalism in Valdesolo (experimental psychologist) sense.

    53. Not seen unorthodox yet, but I've put it on my "reading" list.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. We will, but Amazon, et al, will stop delivering to your house.

    2. Joe: +1
      I expect a cleanup on aisle ThisOne real soon.

    3. And, thank you to the management.

  5. I went to the grocery yesterday.
    They had lot's of TP, little bread and little rice.
    I don't think that's a product of hoarding,
    That's a product of our government driving people into poverty.
    But everybody but myself and a few others had their signs of obedience and silencing on.

    1. Is Michigan offering bounties for turning in law breakers? Do you happen to have their quarantine violator hot line? I could use the bucks.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective